Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

0110011001110101 writes "NASA's mission that sent a space probe smashing into a comet raised more than cosmic dust -- it also brought a lawsuit from a Russian astrologer. 'Bai is seeking damages totaling $300 million -- the approximate equivalent of the mission's cost -- for her "moral sufferings," Izvestia said, citing her lawyer Alexander Molokhov. She earlier told the paper that the experiment would "deform her horoscope." ' "

Of course, if this suit is allowed to proceed, doesn't that also open her up to suits by her clients for all the predictions she made that didn't work out perfectly? 3oo million probably won't be enough for her to pay all the suits she'll lose if the courts determine astrology is legally valid and binding.

If the Russian court agrees to let this case proceed, it opens the door for all kinds of inane, utterly frivolous lawsuits from astrologers, witch doctors, faith healers, and every other kind of kook out there who wants to make a quick buck by accusing actual scientists of violating some crackpot principle. I'm not an objectivist, but I have to say that Ayn Rand must be rolling over in her grave.

Hmm... What do you call it when you are warned that your coffee is dangerously hot by the state safety officials but you decide to go ahead and do it anyway because it allows you to squeeze out more juice per grind?

The coffee spilled while she was removing the lid, as a passenger in a stopped car, in an attempt to add cream and sugar -- something very common among coffee drinkers. While many jurors did not originally feel that the case was warranted, after seeing the evidence, they were particularly struck by McDonald's callousness in the case. The plaintiff received third-degree burns on 6% of her body as a consequence of the spilled coffee and initally requested compensation for her medical bills, which for such extensive burns are significant. McDonald's knew that the risk existed, as they served their coffee very hot. They'd seen cases of this happening before (from first to third degree burns), settling out of court but not changing their policies.

As a long-time coffee drinker, I frequently have a cup of coffee in the car. It spills. But third-degree burns are not part of any rational person's expectations of the consequences of spilled coffee. If you're going to serve something that carries that sort of danger -- one beyond normal expectations for the product -- to a place where it's well-known that spills will occur, at the very least there should be clear warnings. Maybe you disagree, but twelve people who actually listed to all the facts (and were not predisposed one way or the other) didn't.

Of course, now you often can't get McDonald's coffee that's hot enough and they put warnings on their cups, which isn't necessary (though to do otherwise may make them guilty of not protecting their stockholders). So it seems silly in retrospect, as the beverage is just as hot as you'd expect, but with warnings. Still, warnings never hurt anyone.

If the Russian court agrees to let this case proceed, it opens the door for all kinds of inane, utterly frivolous lawsuits from astrologers, witch doctors, faith healers, and every other kind of kook out there who wants to make a quick buck by accusing actual scientists of violating some crackpot principle.

On the other hand, it would also show very clearly that there's absolutely no evidence that such crackpot theories are valid. Think about it - this woman stands to gain $300 million if she can show that her particular crackpot theory is valid. If the court case proceeds, and she can't show that astrology works - given some pretty damn big incentive - then perhaps less people will be inclined to believe in astrology.

By the way, what's the deciding factor between whether or not something is a) a crackpot theory, b) a superstition, or c) a religion? Seems to me, the amount of believers and money involved has something to do with it.

A crackpot theory is typically believed by one or two people. Astrology is a cottage industry. And Christianity has a billion believers and stupid amounts of money.

Nope, not a chance. The publicity would just legitimize astrology. When the suit was finally decided in NASA's favor, believers would just spin it that NASA had better lawyers.

People who believe in astrology don't do so because of logic. They cling to the hope that the universe is not just a giant machine, that they are somehow made unique among humans by their keen intelligence, inside knowledge, and special placement in it.

People who believe in astrology don't do so because of logic. They cling to the hope that the universe is not just a giant machine, that they are somehow made unique among humans by their keen intelligence, inside knowledge, and special placement in it.

The very nature of astrology implies that the universe is a giant machine and that it determines your attributes. The placements of planets A, B, and C indicate that I have attribute X. While the belief is illogical, the motivation for it appears to be a fe

People who believe in anything that isn't objectively verifiable, do not believe because of logic. This includes religious belief, since it is, by definition, faith-based. Faith is not rational or logical- it is merely a manner in which we choose to structure our worldview.

In the Large Hadron Collider you will find the answer. Here [unipi.it] or here [mppmu.mpg.de] or a more wider search [google.ca]

>>What about the hadron boot-strap? Branes?

Not sure what you mean about boot-strap, but as for the Hadron family, look for..."Large Hadron Collider"

You may not SEE them, but evidences are conclusive enough. When experiences match theory closely, it holds proof of existence.

>Branes

Branes..ah! Branes...Wait for the next version of the LHC [ichep02.nl]. We'll know if it's just theory or not in a few years, so hold your breath! Even more! The Higgs boson [uct.ac.za] might give up to the LHC and show up at last (he's the one supposedly responsible for giving its mass to a particle - so it's somewhat a big deal). And the nice thing is that, since it's theory (again), we'll soon be fixed on wherever it exists or not. If not, other theories will try to explain mass and will be tested. Until we find out.

>>I think we take a lot on faith without realising it. Much of that is based on someone elses faith too!

That is where your mistake is. Science is not faith-based but fact-based. Faith has no room in the scientific process. Confidence in one's experiments or theory is only confidence and has to be tested to be considered valid.

>>And I don't see Occam's razor as being a logical method.

The Occam's razor is not a method for conducting science, it is a simple thought and a guidance as to where to look at: the most simplest explanation is the first you should consider. It assumes (generally rightfully) that nature takes the shortest paths. As do humans. But again, it is not a method - at all.

> Religion and logic don't necessarily disclude one another, but for those who belive in both, the order> of which supercedes which might determine whether they're agnostic or if they're religious.

Religion may be logical, but it is based on flawed principles. It is very easy to show the problems with the basic principles, and the rest comes crumbling down. I am referring to religion having any bearing on the physical world, e.g. creationism. Leave it in the spiritual realm where it belongs and you won't have any problems.

There are three parts to a theory: observation, prediction and testing. ID only meets one of the three; observation.

ID does not make any testable predictions (how do you test for a supreme being?) and as a result cannot be considered a theory. In fact, those who support ID go out of their way to show the flaws of Darwins theory but never show why ID is better.

It's not about logic. It's about the scientific process which requires facts to validate or invalidate a theory. No such proof is ever given by the ID side.

This whole argument is useless since Darwins theory has been shown to be the correct one thanks to both horses and birds. In both cases these animals evolved from other animals. In the case of horses the fossil evidence (see, there's that proof I'm talking about) shows that horses were not always horses. They are descended from creatures roughly the size of a large dog and can in no way be considered a horse.

As far as birds are concerned the proof, while not absolute, is all but confirmed especially in light of this article [sciencemag.org] (which was rejected for submission) which describes how the bone of a T. Rex was examined and found to have a similar structure to only one living relative: female birds who had just ovulated.

Combine the above information with the overall skeletal structure of birds with those of T. Rex (and other dinosaurs), throw in archaeopteryx [berkeley.edu] and you have another link in the chain.

Remember, nowhere does Darwin say that all creatures must have evolved from other forms. He only says that creatures may evolve. Since both horses, and to a large extent, birds have been shown to have evolved from other creatures, the theory has been proven to be correct. Even leaving out birds gives one such proof of the theory and one is all you need.

The issue isn't about using logic, it's about people wanting to believe that somehow we're unique. That there is a reason for our existence. The idea that we're born, live and die just like the billions of other creatures on this planet is too much for their egos to take. They need to find a reason for their existence. If that reason is religion, so be it. Just don't try to masquerade religion for science.

Hahaha... Yeah, they'll do that out here in Texas. We used to have elementary school classes that taught social studies and civics and stuff like that. They taught how to value freedom and how to respect one another. What ever happened to those classes? Are they still being taught? I know they left an impression on me but it seems clear that it's not leaving an impression these days.

On the other hand, you realize that a Linux fish is essentially a mobile insult against their religious expression which

My understanding of the KS debate was whether to explicitly deny that no form of creation other than evolution was possible or not. From what I have heard the media distorted and fanatisized it. While I believe everything currently points to evolution, I'm not so closed minded to think that I could still be wrong.

Yes. I live in KS and the media royally screwed up reporting on what really happened. The Board of Education simply stated that teachers are "allowed" to offer alternatives to evolution. They were never forced to do so and evolution was never removed from the curriculum. In fact, the ruling had little affect outside of allowing teachers to critique evolution if they so chose.

What scientific alternatives to evolution are there? It's like looking for a scientific alternative to gravity. No one has seriously supported alternatives to evolution for decades. Now, if you want to say there is controversy about the mechanisms, or different evolutionary paths, I could buy that, but there are no (at this time) credible scientific alternatives to evolution. The alternatives are all religious ones, no matter how they try to disguise the language, and they do not belong in science class.
-aiabx

My understanding of the KS debate was whether to explicitly deny that no form of creation other than evolution was possible or not. Bad understanding.Evolution theories are NOT creation theories. Whether current scientific theories of the evolutionary processes are complete and/or 100% correct is one thing. Feeling the need to say that, because the science is incomplete, creation dogmas might be valid is quite another thing.

It is not banned in TX wholesale. My understanding, which is not complete as I don't have kids yet, is that each "ISD" (Independent School District?) has the power to set its own curriculum. Mine seems to teach both, I find this to be a horrible failure in society (that and the fact that PE is taught more rigorously than math, at least here). Creationism is not science, period.

I'm finding there are 2 types of Texans, one I dislike a lot, and the other I like a lot. The neo-con lunatic is the kind I can't abide, but I'm finding these are not natives, they seem to be imported. The other kind of Texan is the gun toting, fuck government, don't tax me, if-I-want-to-kill-myself-being-stupid-let-me kind. I like them a lot and I did not find this in either California or anywhere in the north east.

Which is more likely? Someone is going to force religion on you today or someone is going to try to enforce no religion at all or make a slam at them for being religious? The latter makes up for 99% of all religious conversations yet they all claim the 1% is the problem. Here's a thought. Leave them alone and let them live their life rather than trying to force a ban on religion everywhere

Heres a hint. Making up numbers does not legitimize your point. In my experience, but then im from northern florida, the vast majority of the time its someone trying their best to convince me that I am going to hell because im an athiest. IF it were just a matter of "live and let live", that would be FINE. However, the religious zealots are most of the problem (again, from MY experience). I cant remember ever hearing of atheists assaulting religous people's person or property because they had a god sticker on it. However, I see and hear the reverse all the time. Happened to my wife (back when she was just my girlfriend). She had a pro Wicca bumper sticker and some god nut busted her windshield and wrote nasty stuff on her car with a magic marker, stuff along the lines that they should bring back witch burning. Kind and wonderful people, they are.

Surrounded by atheist barbarians who want to force their children into gay marriages, perform mandatory abortions on their pregnant daughters and burn all bibles in the libraries. You can never stop watching for those barbarians, else you will wake up to find 24 hours porn programming on all TV stations. With a bare-breasted Janet Jackson doing the weather.

However, I see and hear the reverse all the time. Happened to my wife (back when she was just my girlfriend). She had a pro Wicca bumper sticker and some god nut busted her windshield and wrote nasty stuff on her car with a magic marker, stuff along the lines that they should bring back witch burning. Kind and wonderful people, they are.

I'll make you a deal: you don't compare me to such "God Nuts" -- i.e. some teenager on a fling who thought it would be fun to divert the blame to Christians -- and I won't compare you to some of the great atheists of history... like Stalin or Mao. On the other hand, you give Christianity some credit for the Mother Theresa's, Wilberforces, Martin Luther Kings, and Saints Frances, and I'll let you have J.S. Mill and the like.

The sad thing about sick minds is that they can pervert any belief system. That's not the fault of the belief system, that's the fault of the minds.

Actually, lawsuits by crackpots are not uncommon. Especially producers of "alternative" medicine are prone to sueing people who state that their product doesn't work. Normally, such a case is judged on the fact whether it can be shown objectively that the defendants statements were false. Science is objective, and such cases are therefore usually resolved by a loss of the crackpot (since alternative medicine is alternative because science has shown that it doesn't really work). I think in this case the same

To fix this, you should have a law liek Canada's where the loser pays the legal bills for both sides in a law suit. This ensure frivilous law suits have to think twice. While a suit with a legitimate chance of suceeding won't be unduly impeded.

No, that's a terrible idea. Real "Loser pays"-type systems usually have the judge deciding who pays how much, based on things like, was this a reasonable action (even if you didn't win), did you introduce frivolous motions just to waste time and money, etc.

Pure loser-pays systems are no better than the status quo, because then small individuals daren't ever risk suing large organizations, because if they lose, they may end up owing millions in legal fees (since the big company can spend that much without breaking a sweat). You might say, "Well if they lose, then it was obviously a frivolous lawsuit," but that's plainly not true either.

According to Izvestia, the first hearing took place on Monday, but as the representatives of NASA were not present in the court, it was postponed to the 28th.

And i do believe they will let the case proceed, as the judge recommended that the astrologer and her defendant find a specialist who would be able to tell whether the experiment caused and increased threat of comet impact. It seems that they are trying to spin the case into a demonstration against the US "solving all problems, scientific ones included, with bombs." (quoting the astrologer herself) Yeah, so it might be absurd, but it seems that in foreign politics, everything goes for the Russians.

Arguably, I have more proof that the events of Star Trek or Lord of the Rings happened than anything in the bible.

IIRC quiet a few incidents described in the bible have been confirmed by other historical sources. I'm not talking about walking on water or plagues of locust, but wars, conquests, the names of rulers etc. By automatically dismissing everything in the bible as false, you show that you haven't critically evaluated it, which puts you in the same boat as those who assume everything in it is true.

I'm LDS myself, and while I of course disagree with your view of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, this new religion isn't the most successful, at least not in terms of size of membership.
The Seventh-Day Adventists were started in 1849 (LDS Church was started in 1830) and recently reached 13 million people (LDS Church has near 12 million). Pentecostal Christianity was started in Topeka, Kansas, in 1901, and now claims about 450 million members worldwide (150 million in Africa). The Assemblies of God have about 35 million members, and they started in 1914, also in Topeka.
Of course, it doesn't bother me that much. Nothing about prophecies concerning the last days said that Christ's church was going to be in a majority.:)

I've seen astrolgers that don't know me but have written up complete reports about who I am and what I feel, think, and believe -- without ever having met me.

James Randi did an experiment where he handed out horoscopes to a class of (college) students and had them rate how closely they matched reality. Most of the students said the horoscopes were accurate. He then had them swap horoscopes, and they found out that they all had the exact same horoscope. Now, how could ONE horoscope match everyone? Because it was filled with generalities and vague statements, that's how. The students themselves filled in the details where they were missing, and sub-consciously remembered the 'hits' more than the 'misses'.

Now, without knowing the exact circumstances behind your case, I can't tell you for sure that's what happened. Only you can, if you choose to look at what happened objectively.

I've seen people healed by faith healers,

Really? If you can prove that, you might win $1,000,000! Go to www.randi.org for details.

I've met psychics who can vividly describe situations and people that later become part of my life.

I sense a... man, or maybe a woman. He is tall, maybe short. BLond hair, maybe brown or black. You'll like this person, or maybe hate them.

How'd I do??

And before you start talking about "cold reading", I have a solid background in psychology, and did not give these people a chance to meet me or be exposed to me to cold read me.

You may "have a solid background in psychology", but you don't understand what 'cold reading' is. Cold reading does NOT depend on meeting the victim before hand, or even knowing anything about them before hand. That would be 'hot reading'.From Wikipedia: "Generally, the cold reader will make a series of vague statements, will observe the subject's reactions, and then will refine the original statements according to those reactions"..."even without prior knowledge of a person, a psychic could still obtain a great deal of his subject's history by carefully analysing his or her look and other background information, such as gender, religion, race, education level and place of origin."

So, let's apply Occams Razor. Either there are people in this world who can 'speak to spirits', 'read minds', and have other paranormal powers (but choose to eke out a living reading palms instead of, say, getting the winnign lottery numbers). OR, there are people in this world who are frauds. Fakers. Con men.

[ snip re: Randi experiment with handing a bunch of students the same horoscope ]

In that case, it wasn't a full chart, done correctly.

And yet a significant proportion of the students said that the horoscope matched them. This is the entire point - that it wasn't a genuine horoscope, but people believed it fit them. It was written in horoscope style - full of vague waffle that could fit just about anyone. And of course people will generally remember the hits and ignore the misses [skeptics.org.nz]. It's just human nature - and professional con-artists are very well aware of how to take advantage of human nature.

I have brought up the topic with several psychics (about Randi's reward), and most have the same attitude: He can believe what he wants, what he thinks is not their problem, and it's not worth THEIR effort to play his game. Most people I know in this field don't worry about pay, and the ones that do it full time are paying for their needs and not more. Maybe it's hard for some to understand, but many feel there is more to life than money or materialism.

Wow. Just.... wow.

And you seriously just accept that? The notion that, for a very small expenditure of time on their part, they could walk away with one million dollars.... one million dollars that they could donate to any charity in the world (if they weren't interested in the money themselves)... and yet they say they're not interested?

Bullshit. Sheer undiluted bullshit.

Oh, and by the way - I can turn invisible and fly through the air. I just don't feel like demonstrating it to anyone, not even for money. You see, money's not that important to me, so that's why I make my living working an eight-to-six office job. So... what do you mean, I'm talking crap?? Don't be so close-minded!

Just out of interest, why don't you ask your psychic pals exactly how much money would have to be offered to make it worth their while? Ten million? A hundred million? A billion? Ten billion? If they just keep saying that "it's not worth their effort"... at some point you just have to realise that it's bullshit.

If that sounds funny to you, then look at yourself. What are you doing? Could you apply effort elsewhere and be much more wealthy than you now? If so, why don't you? Why not be rich instead of doing what you do now?

If I could earn (cue Dr Evil voice) "one meeeellion dollars" simply by demonstrating an ability I possess, you can bloody well be certain that I'd do it.

The reason your "psychic" acquaintances don't take up the Randi challenge is because they know it's incredibly unlikely that they'd pass, and it'd be an embarrassing waste of time for them... though I suspect the embarrassment factor would be the biggest component.

Maybe it's too hard for you to detach from your preconceived notions and be objective.

If your psychic acquaintances had any genuine abilities, they shouldn't disappear just because they're faced with a sceptic. The reality is that very few "psychics" have enough faith in their own abilities to put them to a genuine test.

an shy-looking astronomer was interviewed and she said something to the effect of "you know, that experiment is sort of interesting, but we regret this "american buckaroo-style" (sic) way of doing space research, as a probe that could land and latch on the comet, then drill and study things would have done a better job for not much more money."

Sorry. If that's what she honestly said (and meant), she's a loony.

1: It's not easy to land on a comet or asteroid. The gravity's quite weak, and not regular either. Especially as you don't know the composition or internal structure.

2: It's not like the comet was going to stay pristine. Comets travel through very harsh environments. It's unlikely that if we went back to Tempel I on its next orbit that we'd see the same surface features. There's no "preservation" really needed.

3: The impactor created an explosion equivalent to about 5 tons of TNT. That would've taken a lot of drilling, and it still would've only given localized information.

4: Finally, and most importantly, it's simply ludicrous to believe that this mission could've been replaced with one with a controlled, long duration landing probe for nearly equivalent money. We know very little about the surface of a comet. It's entirely possible had we tried to design a lander, we would've sent it there and then said "well, um, we found out all of its instruments are useless on comets!"

The other comment I've heard, from a friend who studies all kinds of space things, is that he hoped NASA picked their comet-target right, because they probably changed its trajectory in minute ways

Do the math. Any change in its orbit is unmeasurable. Comets are still very big - Tempel 1 is in the 10^13 kg range. The impactor was 370 kg. Relative velocity was 10 km/s. That means you're talking about a delta-V in the neighborhood of a tenth of a micron per second.

The other comment I've heard, from a friend who studies all kinds of space things, is that he hoped NASA picked their comet-target right, because they probably changed its trajectory in minute ways, and it could come back to haunt us if it happens to be cyclical with a very long period, and NASA didn't know about it, and it came back with something that looks like a collision course in the future.

Tell that friend who "studies all kind of space things" to study some logic and probabilities too. Since all c

The woman is suing the government for depriving her of her ability to make an income in her current profession. Her allegation is that the government (through NASA) has fundamentally shifted the course of celestial bodies with the impact and that she is entitled to monetary recompense.

This is so similar to how the record companies are fighting tooth and nail to stop people from changing the RIAA's business model.

Is someone entitled to make a living? Should the government be in the business of putting people out of work?

The woman is suing the government for depriving her of her ability to make an income in her current profession.

Bullshit.

Changing the course of a celestial body in no way deprives this person of her livelihood. She's supposed to read the movements of the stars, right? Ok, so this was one of them. We, humans, products of the universe, make changes to it just like stars and planets exert their own forces on comets. An astrologer should be reading the movements, not complaining about them being made.

Now, naturally, since she's just making this shit up anyway, what it really amounts to is an increase in her ability to make income; she can call all her clients up and say "You must come in immediately for a new reading, as NASA has just fucked up the heavens." and dupe these poor sons of bitches yet again. And if anybody thinks this lady is up to anything but a (successful) publicity stunt, you're way off base.

Also, in more direct conflict of the parent statement:

1)TFA doesn't say she's suing them for loss-of-business damages, but "moral sufferings"....you just made that up.
2)300 million? How long would it have taken her to earn that much? Because that's what the damages would be determined by if the cause of action was what you claim. It isn't.

Marina Bai has sued the U.S. space agency, claiming the Deep Impact probe that punched a crater into the comet Tempel 1 late Sunday "ruins the natural balance of forces in the universe"Bai is seeking damages totaling $300 million -- the approximate equivalent of the mission's cost -- for her "moral sufferings"

So...the cost of ruining the 'natural balance of forces in the universe' is $300 mil US. Wonder how she arrived at that figure...could we see a breakdown?

Actually I believe this figure is accurate. Since it cost about $300M (+/- $100M) for Anakin to "restore balance to the force", the figure in the lawsuit is roughly the amount required to repair the damage.

But will she use it to make the repairs, or spend it on vodka, lottery tickets and incense?

You may be persecuted by American space agencies today, dear Libra. However, despite your "moral sufferings" you will be able to gain great fortune from friends, family, and coworkers. Embrace your lawyers, Libra, for they will save you from the unnatural entropy of the universe caused by space probe crashes!

If this goes through I will counter sue for one billion dollars. The damage to my karma this will cause will be HUGE. I mean it. I will be so mad at this woman that my aura will never be the same. I could end up coming back as a rat or worse fan of Ayn Rand or some other low form of life.What amount of money would be enough to make up for this eternal setback? A billion would be a good start.

On a more reasonable note. You can sue anyone for anything. It is nothing but a stunt.

She earlier told the paper that the experiment would "deform her horoscope."

NASA: Okay - how's about this - we spend all the money required to create a new horoscope, which incorporates the changes we made to the "fabric of the universe", and has just as much predictive power as your old horoscope.

Total price: $0.

Studying astronomy instead of astrology: Priceless.

For bullshit predictions based on the position of the planets at the moment of your birth, there's Madame Marina Bai. For everything else there's NASA.

I'm certainly interested in seeing such a case appear in court. Usually, charlatans such as these take care to avoid independent scrutiny and measurability. To let it appear before court would place her in the position of having to prove the had any abilities to begin with... and that's going to work against her the most. At least, I'm guessing the judge is going to be a lot more emotionally independent than her clients who probably have an emotional interest in believing in her abilities.

Ah yes, so now the woman has to show in court that astrology really works -- which she can't, of course. Unfortunately, her answer will be that the fact that it doesn't work validates her claim: NASA changed the universe so that she cannot really predict anything anymore. And of course she will bring in a string of witnesses who will claim that her predictions before this date were faultless.

You're right, that is probably how a charlatan like her would argue. But, even if she succeeds in proving that astrology worked before, she would still need to prove that the same astrology is no longer going to work at all as the result of 1 comet impact.

With other words: in order for her to prove her claim, she has to prove that astrology from now on is false and that all astrologers following the same method will fail to reach "true" conclusions. It actually seems in the interest of other astrologers fo

The whole Zodiac system was made up 2000 years ago, on the idea that your 'sign' was the one that the sun rose into on your birthday. At the present time, the Earth has precessed something like 15 degrees, so the sun actually rises 1 sign away from where it originally did. (thanks Bill Nye!)

Fuck these goddamn superstitious idiots anyway, we left the caves a long time ago.

I think its the paying customers that you should criticize for not thinking clearly, not the astrologers themselves. I confronted an "astrologer" with the same facts you mention, and she explained that's the reason she keeps up on the latst astronomy news, and why people need professionals like her, rather than try to do astrology themselves.

I say that if she, while blindfolded and away from any source of news, could have told the authorities the exact instant the impact occurred, and supposedly changed all the "energy fields" and "balance of the universe", by all means, let her lawsuit be heard!

Defense Lawyer: Your honour, if you let this case proceed our court systems will be flooded with inane frivolous lawsuits, and the number of lawyers in our country will rise exponentially. As proof I would like to enter into Evident Exhibit A, the United States legal system.

This is really a test of the Russian courts. I know many large foreign (to Russia) companies do not want to work in Russia as they fear frivilous lawsuits losing them money as Russian courts hand it to the locals simply because they enjoy profiting.

Should this case not receive the honest critic of its validity that it should get, I can see Russian courts becoming basically ignored on the world scale. Why bother defending yourself if you can't win? You might as well lose and just let them try to collect.

In an unprecedented prank, NASA engineers sent capsule with astrologer and her lawyer towards Mercury. Her parents sued over the suffering endured by her daughter while sharing the tiny capsule with a lawyer. "Ok, I must admit that part was not nice", said a nerdy NASA engineer. Oddly enough, this "astral trip" was part of a previous settlement...

Any real astrologer knows that the courts are not the proper channel for such disputes. The correct procedure for redress of these complaints is for the astrologer to put a curse on NASA. And then, when NASA begs forgiveness, she can dictate her terms to them.

Why don't people use the established channels the way they were intended to be used anymore???

Hold on there, cowboy. If you're going to post idiotic rants, at least be sure to toss in an inane "W is dumb-leyou" rant and blame the MPAA somehow. Sure, maybe you got lucky this time, but not every moronic brain fart gets "+5, Insightful" without those two essential elements.

Seriously, without the huge surplus lawyer-mountain in the US, crazy shit like this wouldnt be an option.

In an open court system, any moron can file a suit against anybody for anything. The story did not say that the Russian (did we miss that tiny detail in our rush to post "Insightful" word vomit about how lawyers are teh 5uX0r?) court had granted the lady summary judgment or anything. It just said that she filed it. If you really want to see how easy it is, go down to your local court house and file an action against the ABA and its Russian equivalent, and in your "Prayer for Relief," ask the judge to shoot all of the lawyers at a Comet. If you pay the fee, you are free to file your stupid, frivolous lawsuit (and maybe it will even make Slashdot). It will be dismissed and...

I think US judges should be given encouragement to laugh in the faces of morons who bring court cases like this, and to charge them costs big time to put them off pulling such pathetic stunts.

...there's a good chance you will be fined under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a state equivalent (depending on where you file). Speaking of pathetic, could we call it slightly pathetic that you are, in response to a Russian lawsuit, angrily crying for U.S. judges to have a power that they already have and exercise? Honestly, can people not even be bothered to read the one-paragraph summary anymore?